Sam Harris.org Reader Forumhttps://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/
Sam Harris.org Reader ForumenCopyright 20162016-12-08T23:53:12+00:00“9-11” Irrevocably Damaged U.$. Psychehttps://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/viewthread/69053/
https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/viewthread/69053/#When:23:53:12Z<p>Ever since that ragtag cadre of caliphatists managed to circumvent the $600,000,000,000 p.a. <span style="font-size:9px;"><span style="color:blue;">[citation needed]<strong>[1][2]</strong></span></span>, “”“superpower’s”“” thereintofore impenetrable fortress of bravado, the tenor of the U.$. populace has been tangibly far less star-spangled-banner-sonorous than at any time since the nation fell into the hegemonic void left by a world effete from WW2 expenditure.</p>
<p>Whether one swallows the formulaic pabulum of narratives promulgated by the establishment, or the most fringe “post-intellect” kookspiracies spouted by the sensationalist fringe — the one unifying offshoot is, that what took place on that fateful day, rocked the long inculcated sense of the U.$. denizen that they / their nation was preëminent and above reproach or riposte for its political actions.</p>
<p>The reverberative effects of this psychological inquietude are surely manifest today — endemic distrust of political institutions; the misological gravitation towards prejudicial pandering (over factual edification); the rise of tribalism; the [re-]emboldening of discrimination <em>et al.</em>.&nbsp; The events in question did not win the ‘war’ against the U.$. (for those who perceive to be in direct or notional conflict with the one-time oriflame of democracy), but it sure seems to have won a decisive battle.</p>
<p>“9-11” not only forced the nation to tread on many of its constitutionally enshrined liberties, but it also blurred the line between church and state—even more than it already tacitly was—to the point, in fact, that literal wars were waged against Mesopotamian daemons; justified through the agency of boldfaced mendacity.&nbsp; To where, today, the world is faced with flat-Earther U.$. vice presidents, climate change deniers given effective control over the world’s global warming action (read: <strong>inaction</strong>) and a wave of pea-brained, zombified populism not observed since Hitler’s era.</p>
<p>It seems to me — and others; as I was goaded to post this rumination by another netizen proposing similar assertions — that the U.$. is suffering from a ‘P.T.S.D.’; not dissimilar to that which it ignored of its own “cherished” military veterans for so long.&nbsp; The trauma of the cataract of lies the nation was born, bred and brainwashed with—the reality of which washed over the nation in that ‘tsunami’ 15 years ago—has apparently done deep, perhaps irrevocable damage to the U.$. mindset and, indeed, affected how the people view themselves and their place in the world.</p>
<p>Reality has come home to roost, and the rapacious rakes—the very antithetical paradigms to that which the U.$. so long purported to stand for: ‘<em>liberty, equality, fraternity</em>’—ascending to power, are (to me, at least) the harbingers to the final stage in the U.$.‘s <em>Course of Empire</em>: <span style="font-size:18px;">Destruction.</span></p>
<p><br />
<span style="font-size:11px;"><strong><span style="color:blue;">[1]</span></strong> Of what’s publicly disclosed<br />
<strong><span style="color:blue;">[2]</span></strong> Not accounting for the trillion$ of “unknown knowns”</span></p>2016-12-08T23:53:12+00:00Sam goes too far with gun licensing restrictionhttps://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/viewthread/69052/
https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/viewthread/69052/#When:22:38:31Z<p>Sam, I disagree with your position mentioned in the “The riddle of the gun” podcast that getting a gun license should be as hard as getting a pilot’s license. </p>
<p>There are five categories we care about when it comes to gun licensing<br />
False negative: Wants a gun, is responsible. Doesn’t get a gun because licensing is too hard / expensive.<br />
Positive: : Wants a gun, is responsible, gets a gun<br />
Negative: Wants a gun, is not responsible, fails the test to get a gun<br />
False positive: Wants a gun, is not responsible, passes the test anyway. The hazard is the gun is used unwisely.<br />
Determined criminal: Wants a gun, is not responsible, doesn’t care about the test</p>
<p>As it relates to how difficult it is to pass the licensing requirements, we want to minimize false positive and false negatives. To this end, how stringent should the requirements be?</p>
<p>Lets use concealed carry permit requirements in Texas and Florida as a baseline:<br />
<a href="https://www.samharris.org/?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F8255%2Freport-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler">http://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler</a><br />
“The police committed 103 crimes per 100,000 officers, while the general population committed 3,813 per 100,000 people, 37 times as much as the police crime rate.” and “Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10 That is just 1/7th of the rate for police officers. But there’s no need to focus on Texas and Florida — the data are similar in other states.”</p>
<p>From these statistics, the people who go to the trouble to get a concealed carry permit are extremely lawful. If anything, it’s a good argument to make those permits easier to get since those citizens commit so fewer crimes than police.</p>
<p>It costs less and takes more training to get a pilot’s license than a concealed carry license, so you are arguing for greater restrictions. First, as I pointed out false positives are already extremely low in the case of concealed carry license holders. I doubt more stringent standards would have much benefit. Second, any time you make it harder to get something some people won’t get that thing due to the increased difficulty.&nbsp; This will increase false negatives, leading to cases where someone would have been morally justified in defending themselves with a gun but won’t have one. The determined criminal category will be mostly unaffected, since someone willing to commit the crime of murder isn’t going to be deterred by the fact that they would also be committing the crime of illegal gun ownership.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s consistent to say gun-free zones are ineffective and hence over-regulation, while also taking the position that gun permits should be extremely hard to get. As I just argued, they are both only effective on those who generally aren’t committing the crimes to begin with.</p>
<p>You state correctly that the police are too far away if you call 911. I will add that they don’t have to show up at all. “Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone”<br />
<a href="https://www.samharris.org/?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2005%2F06%2F28%2Fpolitics%2Fjustices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html%3F_r%3D0">http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html?_r=0</a><br />
Since the courts have ruled the government is not obligated to protect you, and you have a intrinsic moral right to protect yourself, this is a further argument in favor of easy gun ownership.</p>
<p>As a last point, you’re correct that citizens won’t be able to fight off the army in the case of a violent revolution. But an army of citizens vs. the professional army is not the only scenario in a violent revolution. In “The look of Silence” at one point Ramli Rukun ran home to his mother after being stabbed. When the killers came for him, being disarmed and injured, took him away and butchered him. What would have been the outcome if Ramli or his mother had a gun at home? More generally, could this same butchery had happened so easily if an armed society?</p>2016-12-08T22:38:31+00:00Living with Pluralismhttps://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/viewthread/69051/
https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/viewthread/69051/#When:21:24:11Z<p>Listening to “Islam vs Secularism” podcast this morning, and also came across a thread by a patheos blogger. Sam brings up the idea of universal values, and the blogger, Matthew Facciani, brought up that trying to educate everyone on critical thinking is not a silver bullet. It seems we have an impossible task; to get people to be reasonable and agree on some basics that cut across cultures, knowing that getting everyone to think alike is basically impossible. As Michael Che recently joked, we’ve lowered the bar to everyone “matters” and just asking that people be “civil”. If that’s controversial, is maintaining a civil, pluralistic society even possible?</p>2016-12-08T21:24:11+00:00Media muddlehttps://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/viewthread/69050/
https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/viewthread/69050/#When:13:49:27Z<p>With all the talk these days of post truth fake news hoax media etc, I am perplexed and <b>highly amused</b> to read the sub headline in the Guardian’s coverage of <a href="https://www.samharris.org/?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Fasia%2Fbbc-investigation-thailand-king-defamation-a7460046.html">Thailand’s attempt to hush up the BBC (link to the same story in the Independent )</a> by threatening to sue for defamation. </p>
<p>The Independent neglects to mention the most important part of the story, apparently, because according to the Guardian, the police stole the BBC staff’s yoghurt. Oh the humanity:</p>
<p>Screenshot-&nbsp; <a href="https://s15.postimg.org/66rv5tr63/IMG_20161208_121332.jpg">https://s15.postimg.org/66rv5tr63/IMG_20161208_121332.jpg</a><br />
Link: <a href="https://www.samharris.org/?URL=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2016%2Fdec%2F07%2Fthailand-investigation-bbc-alleged-insult-new-king">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/07/thailand-investigation-bbc-alleged-insult-new-king</a></p>
<p><br />
So what I want to know is: hacked, hoaxed, or product placement? Or is the media so muddled up that it can no longer figure out what the story actually is.</p>2016-12-08T13:49:27+00:00Podcast Episode #55https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/viewthread/69049/
https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/viewthread/69049/#When:20:20:04Z<p>Not sure where to discuss the podcast, so posting here. </p>
<p>I am about 50% through Podcast Episode #55 (Islamism vs. Secularism) and I’m finding Shadi Hamid frustrating to listen to. </p>
<p>I very much appreciate Sam speaking up when he disagrees with a bad premise. If it was a traditional interview I would not have made it this far. </p>
<p>-Carl.</p>2016-12-07T20:20:04+00:00Pizzagate and Censorshiphttps://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/viewthread/69048/
https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/viewthread/69048/#When:16:38:49Z<p>I’m surprised there is no discussion on this. Are we not allowed to civilly discuss this topic? There are two issues here: the lack of investigation regarding the Pizzagate conspiracy and the censorship of people discussing it.</p>
<p>I am interested in hearing the forum’s thoughts on if the government/agencies are just in censoring speech regarding Pizzagate.</p>2016-12-07T16:38:49+00:00My Dialogue With a Racist/Theisthttps://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/viewthread/69047/
https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/viewthread/69047/#When:11:28:15Z<p>So I’m a member of another forum (a magic forum of all places) and an interesting thread developed in one of their “non-magic related” discussion rooms. I thought I’d paste it here for your sheer amusement and/or comment. If nothing else, it shows the twisted machinations of a highly religious, highly conservative mind (or at least THIS person’s mind). I wasn’t sure exactly where to put this, so I figured Political and Organizational issues is as good as anywhere, since he’s a Trump supporter. Oh, and this guy is always bragging that he is a scientist (turns out he is some sort of geologist or something). But many of his posts are riddled with basic errors in spelling and grammar. Anyway, here goes…</p>
<p>It started when somebody made an innocent comment about diverting military spending to perhaps address some of our social issues (that’s really ALL he said - nothing at all was mentioned about minorities). Then, out of the blues, this guy (I’ll call him “Dick”) says:</p>
<p><strong>Dick</strong>:<br />
<em>Yes, that’s the answer. Let the wealthiest pass on their money to the minorities. When the minorities receive this money they will definitely stop having babies with multiple different woman and actually stick around to properly parent these kids. The lack of money has to be the reason why their morals and ethics are so wrong. </p>
<p>Or maybe it isn’t the problem since these athletic stars who are rich are contributing to the stats: </p>
<p>•Charles Rodgers: 5 Children, with 4 different women. <br />
•Ray Lewis: 6 children, with an unknown amount of women. <br />
•Shawn Kemp: 7 children, with 6 different women. <br />
•Antonio Cromartie: 7 children, with an unknown number of women. <br />
•Jason Caffey: 10 children, with 8 different women. </p>
<p>Yeah, money, they need more money to stop their sickening moral/ethical behavior. </em></p>
<p><strong>Me</strong>:<br />
<em>How does John’s comment on military spending turn into a rant against minorities?? <br />
What’s ironic is that the people that are so consumed with the problem of babies out of wedlock, or of multiple babies by minorities (which then have a greater potential to become a “burden on society”), are opposed to birth control, condoms for teens, and for a woman’s right to choose. You’d think they’d be FOR the very things that would prevent those births in the first place! And they claim to care SO much about the unborn, but apparently not so much after that baby is born. </p>
<p>But thanks for letting us know who you really are, Dick. You are the LAST person to be judging others on morals and ethics! <br />
</em></p>
<p><strong>Dick</strong>:<br />
<em>Well Ron, you have no idea who I am. I just posted FACTS and you guys were the judges. If you would like more, I can provide them. Is it only minorities, absolutely not! But Google is your friend. </p>
<p>What I am for is self-respect, self-control for ones self and others and family structure . Having these characteristic traits almost eliminates having to prevent births using your unethical suggestions. Your belief along with the other progressives here that redistribution of wealth from the top down will help minorities who fall into the lower wealth class better conduct themselves is a fallacy. That’s WHY I posted what I did, to simply show you that wealth has nothing to do with the manner in which people conduct themselves. The missing components that cause this unethical/moral behavior goes much deeper than just wealth. For you to immediately attribute my post to racism actually tells us a lot about how you and other progressives here think. And that is what is truly sad. At least I am open about the problem and what the underlying causes are and not shallow. </p>
<p>And you probably don’t remember one of my posts (which I actually posted many times here) that one of my BEST friends is black who I grew up with and love dearly. And he is one of the first to agree with me when we talk about societal problems as mentioned here. So go ahead, sling mud all you want, keep avoiding the facts and keep your hands over eyes to avoid the real problems that minorities are faced with. Because your way will definitely help the make things better. NOT! <br />
</em></p>
<p><strong>Dick</strong>:<br />
<em>As a matter of fact Ron, I will post here what I teach my boys. How? Well, my wife overhead my 12 year old son while he was in the shower speaking to my 5 year old son while he was going the bathroom yesterday evening. She documented the whole conversation because she was so proud of what my 12 year old was telling my 5 year old. I don’t want to get the conversation wrong but asked her to email it to me. As soon as she does I will post it here and then you can put a label on me if you wish. <br />
</em></p>
<p><strong>Dick</strong>:<br />
<em>Ok, my wife just emailed me the conversation. Here is the conversation from my 12 year old whose name is Timmy (T) to my 5 year old whose name is Mike (M): </p>
<p>T: Who do we pray with? <br />
M: Our family <br />
T: But who do we talk to? <br />
M: Oh, Jesus and God! <br />
T: Do you believe in God? <br />
M: Yes <br />
T: Always believe in Him. And TRUST Him. <br />
T: Do you admit that you are not always perfect and sometimes you lie? <br />
M: Uh, yes <br />
T: Make sure you tell people sorry and ask Jesus forgiveness too, ok? <br />
M: Ok <br />
T: ALWAYS BE NICE TO ALL PEOPLE TOO. <br />
M: Ok <br />
T: When you start reading bigger words you can start reading the Bible with me. </p>
<p>Now Ron, I understand some here have no interest in the faith part. And I fully respect that which is everyone’s right. The main part is the line I have in all capitals. THAT is what I teach my kids. Being nice and respecting ALL people, not just white people. So you and others’ baseless accusation of me being racist can live on in your own minds but don’t put a label on me for simply presenting FACTS that are there for anyone to see by simply using our friend Google. <br />
</em></p>
<p><br />
I feel sorry for his kids.</p>
<p>Ron</p>2016-12-07T11:28:15+00:00Merkel calls for full-face veil banhttps://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/viewthread/69046/
https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/viewthread/69046/#When:05:17:00Z<p><a href="https://www.samharris.org/?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fmobile.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F12%2F06%2Fworld%2Feurope%2Fmerkel-calls-for-ban-on-full-face-veils-in-germany.html%3Freferer%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2F">http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/world/europe/merkel-calls-for-ban-on-full-face-veils-in-germany.html?referer=https://news.google.com/</a></p>2016-12-07T05:17:00+00:00Is it “Post-Ideological”, or more like “Post-Rational”?https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/viewthread/69045/
https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/viewthread/69045/#When:03:55:57Z<p><a href="https://www.samharris.org/?URL=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fpowerpost%2Fpaloma%2Fdaily-202%2F2016%2F12%2F05%2Fdaily-202-trump-s-pollster-says-he-ran-a-post-ideological-campaign%2F5844d166e9b69b7e58e45f2a%2F">Trump’s pollster says he ran a ‘post-ideological’ campaign</a></p>2016-12-06T03:55:57+00:00The Green Hornet is Deadhttps://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/viewthread/69044/
https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8646/viewthread/69044/#When:00:28:57Z<p><a href="https://www.samharris.org/?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fvariety.com%2F2016%2Ftv%2Fnews%2Fvan-williams-dead-dies-green-hornet-1201933644%2F">R.I.P. Van Williams</a>, who played the Green Hornet in the 1960s TV series.&nbsp; He was the last of the regular cast members left.&nbsp; Bruce Lee, who went on to martial arts legendry, died at just 32 in 1973.&nbsp; Wende Wagner, the <em>gorgeous</em> redhead who played his secretary died in 1997 at just 55, from cancer.&nbsp; And the actors who played reporter Mike Axford and D.A. Frank Scanlon were well into middle age back in the 1960s when the show was on, and are long gone.</p>
<p>I really used to like that show too; unlike the 1960s Batman show, produced by the same people, The Green Hornet was played straight, not campy.&nbsp; Pity it’s never been released on DVD or blu-ray.</p>2016-12-06T00:28:57+00:00